The autonomous car doesn't get drunk. It doesn't get tired. It doesn't get road rage. It isn't in a hurry, and it doesn't need to text its girlfriend while going 80 mph. Whatever its flaws will be, they will be consistent.
I took a Cruise home late last night and it failed to take a right turn that it took successfully when it picked me up. It mistook the space for the bicycle lane to be for the car, because there was no car parked in the other side of the intersection late at night.
Riding in them it's definitely like living in the future, but it's clear that the technology still needs time to mature. I'll keep riding them and provide bug reports while they're in beta, but I'm not uninstalling Uber/Lyft any time soon, especially because their service area is limited to the city, nothing in the East Bay or down the Peninsula yet.
The cars are small and cramped, but clean. No one is allowed in the front seats so it really only seats two people. Three if they're all small and friendly.
I definitely trust it more than a drunk driver at 2 AM if that's the question though.
The meat of it is this: city driving is harder because of all the chaos, but it's actually easier to be safe, because no one's really moving all that fast. If you floor it, you're not going to get going all that fast before the next light. On the freeway, a bad model could lead to doing over 100 mph and then making a hard turn, causing the vehicle to flip over and crash.
If he doesn't do any high risk driving the relevant risk comparison is much different than general population.
Driving skill is not relevant to his point (you could assume he's an average driver who doesn't engage in high risk driving). If he's under 50 and healthy that's probably a considerable risk decrease (reflexes/vision and less chance of medical condition while driving).
So even if self driving cars were safer than human drivers in total, it could be significantly more dangerous for him.
> Whatever its flaws will be, they will be consistent.
Based on what ? ML is anything but predictable.
Turns out there are a whole bunch of people who drive better than average. Statically proven by the word average.
People love bringing up this old trope like it proves that all people are shit drivers. Not everybody sucks at driving.
Except, IMHO, at the moment, autonomous cars drive at best as a drunk, and much worse on average.
Since almost any ai system currently needs SOME help on a 100 mile drive, yet most slightly drunk people would complete that drive just fine, you could argue close to that.
It is a strawman argument to say, "humans are unsafe drivers, so it is better to replace them with robot cars that are not as unsafe". Most intelligent, aware and skilled human drivers are consistent too. I've driven well over a million miles over the last 25 years, including cross-country trips but mostly in the heavy traffic in and around NYC and Long Island. Zero accidents and zero moving violations. If we want to make driving safer the very easy answer is to remove people who are unwilling or unable to drive well and safely. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, our disfunctional government refuses to revoke the licenses from people who have proven they are unwilling and/or unable to drive safely and jail people who drive without a license. The 95 year old who lives down the block, cannot see over the steering wheel and regularly wrecks her car continues to drive. The 20 year old a block over who speeds around without a license plate on his car continues to drive. The 35 year old with 55 moving violations and a license that is suspended speeds through the red light on the corner every day. It isn't impossible to make our roads safer - or even difficult - we just lack the political will.
No one wants this. At least, no one who thought about what that would mean for more than a few minutes. We built our cities in a way that makes driving a necessity. There's no need to fill already overcrowded prisons with people just because they want to work, or eat, or get medical care but can't do any of those things without a car.
After we redesign our cities to be walkable, and after we've invested in adequate public transportation systems, then maybe you'll find support for stricter enforcement.
You sure about that?
> Zero accidents and zero moving violations.
Good for you! You must be saving tons of money with your undoubtedly low insurance rates. Props.
> for a variety of reasons, our disfunctional government ...
Police have finite resources. You'll need to pay more taxes to increase that. Oh hang on...
> proven they are unwilling and/or unable to drive safely and jail people who drive without a license.
>The 95 year old who lives down the block, cannot see over the steering wheel and regularly wrecks her car continues to drive.
She passed her licence, did not total her car, and her insurance will go up due to her accidents Granny might not be a great driver, but just because she's 95 does not mean that she deserves to get shivved while bench pressing, surely?
>The 20 year old a block over who speeds around without a license plate on his car continues to drive.
You want him jailed, eh? Seems a bit much for a minor traffic violation.
The 35 year old with 55 moving violations and a license that is suspended speeds through the red light on the corner every day.
How do you know the license is suspended? How did you find out about the moving violations? How would your brownshirts identify these things?
>It isn't impossible to make our roads safer - or even difficult - we just lack the political will.
100% agree. I'm not paying for room and board for these people. I certainly don't want to default to disenfranchisement, since they've paid years of taxes into road construction.
What I would do, is focus on driving. We don't need to implement the damn Stasi just to fill your dungeons with your undesirables.